Talk:Romulan Star Empire
V'Las I belive V'Las was a Vulcan who was working with the Romulans. - JDB :Yes, ENT establishes exactly that. The article doesn't state otherwise. -- Sci My bad, I thought it was saying he was a Romulan. --JDB Red Sector Anybody read Red Sector by Diane Carey lately? There's a Romulan Empress, age 14 or so, I think. Any way we can incorporate that data into the article? --TimPendragon 22:09, 25 December 2006 (UTC) : I actually try and block Red Sector out of my memory, usually without success. --Turtletrekker 23:47, 29 December 2006 (UTC) ::Me too, honestly, even though I'm a Diane Carey fan. The book was simply terrible, only slightly better than Ship of the Line. Even so... the data should be included... --TimPendragon 00:05, 30 December 2006 (UTC) Neral error The article says this, speaking of the year 2374: :The next year, Narviat was assassinated, and the Continuing Committee elevated Neral, who had been made Proconsul only a year earlier, to the praetorship. Not correct. Neral was Proconsul when we first met him in "Unification", in 2368. Don't know where anyone got the idea that it didn't happen until later, unless they were thinking of Vice-Proconsul M'Ret who defected in "The Face of the Enemy". --TimPendragon 19:51, 29 December 2006 (UTC) Which Logo to Use? Alright. So, Star Trek Nemesis introduced a new emblem for the Romulan Star Empire. However -- it was never specifically said in dialog to have replaced the old emblem established in TNG. So, we have two Romulan states at the end of Articles of the Federation. My compromise was to use both -- the TNG one for the RSE, and the NEM one for the Imperial Romulan State, while marking such use as being conjectural. Somewhere along the line (I didn't check the history to see who), the TNG emblem on this page was replaced with a version of the NEM one. So.... I still like the idea of using the TNG one for the RSE, since it was never said in dialog to be replaced, and using the NEM one for the IRS. But some may disagree. What say we all? -- Sci 03:17 26 MAY 2007 UTC Featured Status Now the history section is on it's own page I don't think this page is worthy of featured status. Nor, in it's current rambling partially unsourced state, is the history page. Thoughts on removing featured status? --8of5 16:51, 20 August 2007 (UTC) :A little bump, in it's current messy state I don't think this is up to good article status let alone featured. --8of5 22:06, 6 December 2007 (UTC) Just to bump this again... this is listed in our featured articles, but it doesn't particularly comprehensive or well presented... --8of5 15:29, March 13, 2010 (UTC) Romulan Star Empire enemy of the Federation again? The Typhon Pact was an alliance of six interstellar states formed in the wake of the Borg Invasion of 2381 as an opposing force to the United Federation of Planets and its allies. -- 17:31, 27 February 2009 (UTC) Is the Romulan Star Empire an enemy of the Federation again?.-- 17:31, 27 February 2009 (UTC) :I think you'll have to read the new books to find out for sure! :But, to let you know, the Romulan Empire has now been divided into two separate Empires in recent novels, so I think that is the premise. -- Captain MKB 19:08, 27 February 2009 (UTC) ::Mind you, The Path to 2404 from Star Trek Online states that the Imperial Romulan State rejoined the Romulan Star Empire after the death of Tal'Aura. – Darth Batrus 19:27, 27 February 2009 (UTC) :::The Path to 2409 must be taken as an "Alternate Timeline" much like the "Shatnerverse". – AT2Howell 03:25, 28 February 2009 (UTC) ::Wrong. I've seen little to no evidence that either must be considered alternate -- both are different interpretations, but equally valid. -- Captain MKB 03:48, 28 February 2009 (UTC) :::No one's saying they're not equally valid. The Shatnerverse is equally valid to the mainstream novel continuity, and so's the STO verse. But the Path to 2409 presents some fundamentally different facts and different historical developments. It is an alternate timeline to the one chronicled in the primary novel continuity. -- Sci 04:45 28 FEB 2009 UTC ::::And that is why the developments in this minor timeline (one source) must be noted as separate from the major timeline (many sources). People are placing this information on articles, causing conflicts with established facts from many novels. – AT2Howell 05:41, 28 February 2009 (UTC) :If you can identify any conflict, please don't keep it to yourself. I haven't noticed any major conflicts with some of these timelines... please, illuminate the situations. -- Captain MKB 05:49, 28 February 2009 (UTC) ::I agree with Captainmike, if there are any conflicts then a section or italic point should be noted in it that states the changes. personally, I don't see any major conflicts either myself. – Darth Batrus 11:07, 28 February 2009 (UTC) There are some pretty big conflicts; There is no mention of the Typhoon Pact in the Path to 2409, and rather than the Federation and Klingons solidifying their alliance in response to the formation of the Pact we're seeing them spiralling towards conflict. However, direct conflicts are only really an issue in the first couple of years of the timeline, and until he novels catch up the Online timeline will be the dominant information source in this period of time. AT2's right, we do commonly shunt a conflicting continuity with fewer sources into a minor section, giving way to the bulk of sources in a larger multi-sourced continuity (the delayed and slightly different fate of Ro Laren in the Online timeline for example would mostly likely be a footnote compared to her greatly expanded alternate history in the DS9 relaunch) but as the Online timeline is more or less on it's own after 2381 that's not going to be too frequent a problem. --8of5 13:38, 28 February 2009 (UTC) :That's why I suggest we note the "alternate" source of this information until the majority of Trek can catch up. Then we will see what agrees and what does not. The good of the many outweighs the good of the one. Online is just one misdirected source, which I hope will form a small footnote in trek history. – AT2Howell 15:40, 28 February 2009 (UTC) You can hope all you want but it's not our place to decide what is and isn't 'proper' Star Trek info. If it's officially licensed then it's in, whether you look like it or not. And so far all the things you've added "alternate" headings too don’t even conflict with anything! --8of5 15:46, 28 February 2009 (UTC) :How about, instead of calling it an "alternate" timeline, we says, "In the continuity of Star Trek Online..." That way, we avoid any perception that we're trying to marginalize STO while also clearly identifying information from STO and distinguishing it from information from the novels. -- Sci 13:19 28 FEB 2009 UTC ::That works for me. Eventually the novels will catch up. Right now the game is only going against about half a dozen novels. As time progresses, and this one source is further contradicted, can we then call it an alternate universe? Is there some magic number of conflicting sources we need to finally label it an alternate universe? If the Countdown series of comics proves to be some "possible future" or offshoot timeline, can we then call the STO universe alternate? Let's set up some rules here. – AT2Howell 17:44, 1 March 2009 (UTC) It is only an alternate universe as far as an in-universe article is concerned if it is established as such within the work. The Myriad Universes stories for example are set out to detail alternate timelines/universes. This issue though is having several sources showing different iterations of what is meant to be the "main universe" as it were. For us as fans to make sense of divergent continuities as alternate universes is entirely reasonable. But for us as archivists on Memory Beta, it is not our place to rationalise the inconsistent efforts of the various licensees. This situation is no different at all from when we have conflicting information from any of our sources (which is very common, the trend of recent novels to stay consistent is pretty new, and even that messes up now and then, Sariel Rager anyone...) I'm a little concerned about how you want to label things though AT2, to put a heading like alternate timeline (or continuity) on an article like the Soong Foundation doesn't make sense. No other source even references the Soong Foundation so what is it meant to an alternative to exactly? Similarly on articles that do have other references, but not conflicting information it isn't necessary to point out it comes from sources which don’t necessarily mesh together in every other detail; the Starbase 20 article for example has information from RPGs and at least two novel continuities, the only time any mention of these differencing sources occurs is when there is a specific contradiction relevant to that article, I see no reason why info from ST:Online should be any different, we don’t need to label it and push it aside unless it does actually contradict information in that specific article. --8of5 18:23, 1 March 2009 (UTC) 2009 movie comics and the impact to Romulus The comics that precede the 2009 movie indicate that Romulus was destroyed (as the movie mentions as well) in the Prime timeline. Should this be mentioned, or has this been hashed to death previously? - Thunderscreech 16:19, May 21, 2012 (UTC) Incorrect STO information Okay, so there's some STO info in here that is incorrect. This article says that Nova Roma is the new capital planet of the Romulan Star Empire, which it isn't. It's the new capital city, on Rator III. It also describes Mol'Rihan has the same planet, which is completely incorrect. I'll make adjustments, just wanted to put this here in case anyone wondered why there were changes made.